GR 126099; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001
ROBERTO MITO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ADJUDICATION BOARD, DAR and VICTORINO FLORES, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from an administrative transfer of a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) covering a parcel of agricultural land. The CLT, originally in the name of the deceased Leonardo Flores, was cancelled and subsequently re-issued in the name of petitioner Roberto Mito by the Gapan-Peñaranda Agrarian Reform Team. Private respondent Victorino Flores, brother of Leonardo, filed a complaint with the DAR Region III, claiming ownership and alleging the transfer to Mito was unlawful. The Regional Director dismissed Flores’s claim and upheld Mito as the tenant-beneficiary. Flores appealed to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which reversed the Regional Director’s order, declared Flores the rightful beneficiary, and ordered Mito to vacate the land.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Mito’s petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the proper mode of appeal and procedural requirements.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on technical and procedural grounds. At the time of the DARAB decision, appeals from quasi-judicial agencies like the DARAB to the Court of Appeals were governed by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-95. This circular mandated that the correct remedy from an adverse DARAB decision is a petition for review, not a petition for certiorari. Mito filed a petition for certiorari, which is an improper substitute for a lost appeal.
Furthermore, Mito failed to comply with the specific requirements under Circular No. 1-95 for perfecting an appeal. His petition impleaded the DARAB, the agency a quo, which is expressly prohibited. He also failed to submit certified true copies of the material portions of the record and did not state the dates of receipt of the assailed resolutions, preventing a determination of the timeliness of the appeal. The law considers the failure to comply with these requirements as sufficient grounds for dismissal. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Certiorari cannot be used to resurrect a lost appeal. Consequently, the Court did not address the substantive issue regarding the evidence supporting the Regional Director’s order, as the procedural lapse was fatal to Mito’s case.